The real problem with Python 3 - no business case for conversion (was "I strongly dislike Python 3")

[Luis M. González]

On Jul 2, 4:07 pm, John Nagle <na... at animats.com> wrote:
> David Cournapeau <courn... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think one point which needs to be emphasized more is what does
> > python 3 bring to people. The" what's new in python 3 page" gives
> > the impression that python 3 is about removing cruft. That's a very
> > poor argument to push people to switch.
>
>     That's the real issue, not parentheses on the "print" statement.
> Where's the business case for moving to Python 3?   It's not faster.
> It doesn't do anything you can't do in Python 2.6.  There's no
> "killer app" for it. End of life for Python 2.x is many years away;
> most server Linux distros aren't even shipping with 2.6 yet. How can a
> business justify spending money on conversion to Python 3?
>
>     If Python 3 came with Unladen Swallow, and ran several times
> faster than Python 2.x, there'd be a strong business case for
> conversion.  Especially for large sites with racks of servers
> grinding through slow CPython code.  But it looks like Unladen
> Swallow will be available for 2.6 before it's available for 3.x.
> So that's not a selling point for 3.x.
>
>     Python 3 is a nice cleanup of some legacy syntax issues.  But
> that's just not enough.  Perl 6 is a nice cleanup of Perl 5, and
> look how that went.  Ten years on, it's not even mainstream, let
> alone dominant.
>
>     This has all been said before. See "Python 3.0: What s The Point?"
> from December 2008:
>
> http://jens.mooseyard.com/2008/12/python-30-whats-the-point/
>
>     Not much has changed since then.
>
>     What I'm not seeing is a deployment plan along these lines:
>
>     1.  Identify key modules which must be converted before Python 3
>         can be used in production environments.
>
>     2.  Get those modules converted to Python 3.
>
>     3.  Put together a distribution for the major platforms (at least
>         Linux and Windows) with builds of those modules.  This
>         could be done on PyPi, which is at present is mostly a link
>         farm, not a repository.
>
>     4.  Get some major distros, like Debian and ActiveState, to
>         include Python 3, as "python3", not as the primary Python,
>         so there are no conflicts.  (Debian already has a formal
>         policy to keep Python versions separate.)
>
>     5.  Get at least two major hosting services to put up Python 3.
>
>     6.  Get at least two popular end-user programs (not modules) to
>         support Python 3.
>
>     7.  Publicize some success stories.
>
> Unless the Python 3 enthusiasts get their act together and work much
> harder on providing an easy transition experience, it's not going to
> happen.
>
>                                 John Nagle

What's the problem?
Python 2.xx will he around for a long time. It will be supported and
you can use it for your existing projects for as long a you want.
On the other hand, if you have a new project and you plan to make it
successful and usable for many years to come, you should seriously
consider using Python 3.